The Twilight of Sovereignty Given at the Commonwealth Club on 10 November 1992 in San Francisco

The Twilight of Sovereignty, a speech delivered by Walter B. Wriston at the Commonwealth Club on 10 November 1992 in San Francisco, California

Introduction:Welcome to today’s meeting of the Commonwealth Club of California. I am Betty Bullock, today’s chair, and now today’s speaker. Walter B. Wriston was born in Middletown, Connecticut in 1919 and was graduated from WesleyanUniversity and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at TuftsUniversity. Following a year’s service as a US State Department Officer and a four-year tour with the US Army during World War II, Mr. Wriston joined Citibank in 1946 as a Junior Inspector in the Comptroller’s Division. He worked his way up through the ranks through the National Division and the Overseas Division. He became President and Chief Executive Officer of the bank in 1967 and of the Corporation, when it was formed, in 1968. He became the Chairman in 1970.

Mr. Wriston retired as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Citicorp and its principal subsidiary, Citibank, in 1984. After having served as Chief Executive Officer for seventeen years and in the various other positions with the company for thirty-eight years, Mr. Wriston’s experiences and contributions have encompassed much more than being a banker; however, he was Chairman of President Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board, a member and former Chairman of the Business Council, and a former co-Chairman and Policy Committee Member of the Business Roundtable. And Mr. Wriston has confessed to me today that he has not done a very good job of retiring. He is presently on the Board of Directors of nine major corporations. He is also a trustee of the Manhattan institute for policy research, a member of the Board of Visitors of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and a Life Governor of New YorkHospital.

Mr. Wriston is the author of the best-selling book "Risks and Other Four Letter Words." His newest book was published this September. It is titled "Twilight of Sovereignty: How the Information Revolution is Transforming our World."

Now let’s welcome to the Commonwealth Club of California, Walter B. Wriston who will address us on the topic of his new book, "Twilight of Sovereignty." Mr. Wriston.

(Applause)

Walter B. Wriston:Thank you very much. It’s a great pleasure to be back in San Francisco, one of my favorite cities. I was telling her that the last time I was in this ballroom, it was lined with cots and I was a soldier and it cost a dollar and a half to sleep here; and hopefully that's not a precedent of what will happen during the speech, but there were a lot of people asleep that night.

Today, I’d like to talk to you a little bit about -- a subject that has been much in the news lately. As a matter of fact, its -- I think its been said -- that when Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, Adam took Eve's hand and stared into her eyes and said: "Eve, my dear, we live in an age of transition." Now, this is a common perception by people of any age who are upset by change. And I think you’ll agree with me that in the last few months we’ve been bombarded by people talking about change when what they often mean is a return to the so-called good old days. But I would argue with you today that we can't go back to that world because it no longer exists. The industrial age in which we all grew up is slowly fading into the information age. And in this new world, intellectual capital is relatively more important than physical capital; and the new source of wealth in our society is not material, it is information applied to work to create value. William J. Perry summed it up very neatly when he said "that in the 19th century the wealth of California came from the gold in our mountains. Today it comes from the silicon in our valleys." So, the pursuit of wealth is now largely the pursuit of information and its application to the means of production. This shift in perception of what constitutes an asset poses huge problems in maintaining the power of government. The competition for the best information is very different from the competition for the best bottom land. The nature of information - how it is traded and produced, the scope, shape, and protocols of information markets will impact government policy, set limits on government’s power, and redefine the concept of sovereignty.

The information revolution has been often announced by futurists, but many of the innovations that they have predicted have never arrived. No one has yet seen the paperless society, nor a helicopter in every back yard. But what we have seen instead is that information technology has demolished time and distance, but instead of validating Orwell's bleak vision of Big Brother watching us, we have all wound up watching Big Brother. No one who has lived through the last few years and watched on live television as the Berlin wall came down or the first protesters in Prague in 1988 chanting at the riot police: "The world sees you," can possibly fail to understand that information technology is changing the way we think about the power of government, about the way the world works, the way we work, and indeed the nature of work itself. The foreign minister of the former Soviet Union, Eduard Shevardnadze, during the Yeltsin coup put it this way "Praise be information technology! Praise be CNN....Anyone who owned a parabolic antenna able to see this network's transmission had a complete picture of what was happening." And this from a senior officer of what used to be the most closed and secretive society on earth.

Now, while historians rarely identify these sea changes when they are living through them, I would argue with you today that the signs are unmistakable that we are now in the midst of a revolution at least as dramatic as that which occurred in the nineteenth century and was described by Paul Johnson as the making of the modern state. But different people see different talismans, each of us constructs his or her own scenario, as we are all the product of the velocity of our own experience. Social analysts observe the social change, scientists tend to emphasis their own specialties. Peter Drucker has described how he sees the situation as follows; 'We passed out of creeds, commitments, and alignments that have shaped policies for a century or two. We are now" he said "in political terra incognita with few familiar landmarks to guide us." While agreeing that we have passed some milestones of history, other perceptive observers concentrate on what they believe are the dramatic advances in technology which have driven this revolution. George Gilder has written that: "The central event of the twentieth century is the overthrow of matter. In technology, economics, and the politics of nations, wealth in the form of physical resources is steadily declining in value and significance. The powers of the mind," he said "are everywhere ascendant over the brute force of things." Now, all of these forces, each interacting with the other with incredible speed is changing how individual nation states live, and work and deal with each other.

The start of this revolution might perhaps be dated in this country from the passage of the G.I. Bill which made it possible for so many of us returning service men and women to get a college education and to begin to build the base of knowledge workers in this society. Today, the proliferation of information technology ranging from the telephone and the fax machine to the fiber optic cable has flooded the world with data and information moving at near the speed of light to any corner of the world. It is a well established principle that a change in degree - if it’s carried far enough - may eventually become a difference in kind. In biology, that’s how a new species are created and old ones die out. Speed is what transforms a harmless lump of lead into a deadly rifle bullet. The explosion of information and the speed at which it can be transmitted has created a situation which is different in kind and not just in degree from any former age. For thousands of years news traveled as fast as a horse could run or a ship could sail. Military power was similarly impeded. Indeed Napoleon's armies could move no faster than those of Julius Caesar. Great national leaders were anonymous to all but those who had actually seen them in person. Today the mini-cam is omnipresent, but in the late 18th century there were no photographs of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, and indeed the Tsar of Russia traveled unrecognized through all of Europe in those years. The ability of the sovereign, in those days, to keep information secret and thus a tight grip on power, began to erode with the invention of the paved road, the optical telegraph, and the newspaper. Richard Brown has observed that when "the diffusion of public information moved from face-to-face to the newspaper page, public life and the society in which politics operated shifted from a communal discipline to a market-oriented regime" -- which is the function -- "the foundation of influence."

Government viewed all of these developments with a very wary eye. As long ago as 1835, Emperor Francis I of Austria turned down a request for permission to build a steam railroad lest it carry revolution to his throne. He was more right than he knew. Years later with the advent of the telephone another sovereign saw danger in a new technology. Leon Trotsky reportedly proposed to Stalin that a modern telephone system be built in the new SovietState. Stalin brushed off the idea, saying "I can imagine no greater instrument of counter-revolution in our time." What we have thought -- what would he have thought if he had lived to see Yeltsin coup which utilized an independent computer network called Relcom that links Moscow with 80 Soviet cities and can and was plugged into similar networks in Europe and the United States to spread the news of that coup. Even more ironic was the fact that Yeltsin communicated with his greatest ally, the Mayor of Saint Petersburg via the government's own digital telephone network. Now, the speed of these modern networks and its their ability to carry massive amounts of the data to the far corners is hard to overestimate, but perhaps I might set it in context this way: The library of Congress aspires to contain all that is published in the United States in the last hundred years. If the contents of all these books and papers and documents were transmitted over ordinary copper telephone wire it would take about 500 years to complete. Today the entire load of material can be sent over fiber optic cable in a total of about eight hours. And doubtless this is only the beginning. But what has such speed and volume done to the way the world works?

Barbara Ward has written that revolutions do not occur until people learn that there is an alternative to their way of life. Since the whole world is now tied together by an electronic infrastructure we have what now amounts to a continuous global conversation. The implications of the global conversation are about the same as the implications of the village conversation, which is to say enormous. In a village, there’s a sort of rough sorting out of ideas, customs and practices over time. A village will quickly share news of any advantageous innovation. If anyone gets a raise or a favorable adjustment in his or her rights, everyone else will soon be pressing for the same treatment. The global conversation prompts people to ask the same questions on a global scale. And to deny human rights or democratic freedoms is no longer to deny an abstraction articulated by some educated elite, but rather it is a custom that they have seen on their TV monitors. And once people are convinced that these things are possible in the village, an enormous burden of proof falls on those who would deny them.

Today, village and indeed national borders have ceased to be boundaries. Data of all kinds move over and through them as if they did not exist. Arthur C. Clarke who first postulated the viability of the geosynchronous satellite put it this way. "Radio waves have never respected frontiers, and from an altitude of 36,000 kilometers, national boundaries are singularly inconspicuous." Today, satellites peer down into every corner of a nation state, data and news are received by people within the borders by every device ranging from a hand-held transistor radio to personal computers at home and work. In short, the sovereign has totally lost control of what people can see and hear, and can no longer maintain the fiction that there are no alternate forms of government.

Not only does this information revolution make the assertion of territorial control impossible with regard to what people will see and hear, but it also makes it less relevant in a lot of ways. The physical control of territory has always been the most important elements of sovereignty; the importance of this control in many respects is fading away. Not that long ago armies fought and men died for control of the iron and steel in the Ruhr basin, because the ownership of those physical assets conferred real economic power. Today these once fought over assets may be a liability. To the extent that new technology replaces once essential materials, the relative importance of these areas to national interests is changing; even the control of the so-called geographic "choke points" have less significance than they once had. A few years ago you may remember that the conventional wisdom was that the lights would go out all over the world if the Suez Canal were ever closed. The power of a sovereign state, Egypt, to block the flow of oil from the Middle East was believed to be absolute. But the conventional wisdom didn’t take into account that technology would allow the building of super tankers that could carry oil; around the Cape of Good Hope economically. Similarly advances in military technology are vitiating the relevance of other strategic positions. The velocity of change is shifting the whole tectonic plates of national sovereignty and power in ways that are still unfolding.

Whatever facet of sovereignty people talk about, in the end, the central concept is that the actions of the sovereign are not subject to contradiction by any other power. Indeed the short definition in the "Dictionary of International Law" defines it as: "The supreme individual authority possessed by the state to enact and enforce its laws with respect to all persons, property and events within the boarders." The development of sovereignty as a political theory has a long history dating back at least to Roman Law, moving through the absolutism of Bodin in the 17th and 18th centuries, to Hobbes and John Locke and Rousseau. But, while the ruler in whatever era, could always find a political philosopher to validate his or her assertion of power, the information revolution has now given history a new reverse twist which stands conventional wisdom on its head. So great is the desire of some nations for the approval of the world that they now call in outsiders to validate their own national elections. This is an extraordinary development far removed from the assertion of absolute power in conducting a nation's internal affairs. Consider the Council of Freely Elected Heads of State who Noriega called in Panama to observe the election. Former President Jimmy Carter and some European counterparts told the world in no uncertain terms that the Panama election in 1989 was a fraud and dishonest and in a sense paved the way for the American military action which followed. The same group was asked to witness the Nicaraguan elections in 1990 and gave it their seal of approval which started that country along the road toward a fragile democratic government. But, in addition to monitoring elections, the whole field of human rights is rapidly becoming a world concern. Today, as the chanters in Prague told the police, the world sees what is going on. The cold print in the newspaper now has a human face in living color and in real time and in your living room. It makes all the difference. The Kurds, for example, have suffered from subjugation by others on and off since the Arabs conquered them in the 7th century. But it was the images of horror on CNN last year that awoke the world to their plight in Iraq. Incredible as it may seem, an international conference on human rights which was held in, of all places, Moscow in 1991 saw the Russian representative declare that "national guarantees are not sufficient so we have to review the principle of non-interference in the affairs of other governments." Indeed the history of the last few years has seen the growing popular support for the rights of individuals in all nations against the prerogatives of the sovereign, wherever located.